June 26, 2008
SCOTUS Decides For Individual Rights in Heller, Liberal Calls on Scalia to be Murdered
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling supporting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment today, and within moments, a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
David Ehrenstein, an entertainment industry liberal, made the comment. He blogs at Fablog.
Update: As noted by a sharp-eyed "Jabba the Tutt" in the comments, this is the same David Ehrenstein that created the meme of Barack the Magic Negro. Quick, somebody tell Rush!
Update: Wiped. Crooks and Liars has finally scrubbed Ehrenstein's comment.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 AM
| Comments (48)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The only problem with the decision is that Justice Scalia left the tactic of licensing intact - want to bet that arm of the DC Bureaucracy will make the DMV look efficient?
"Sure, you can get a handgun license... the processing period is now 50 years."
It could be a form of Jim Crow all over again, this time aimed against gun owners and potential gun owners.
Posted by: Jeff at June 26, 2008 11:07 AM (yiMNP)
2
Not just murdered, but SHOT! Isn't that special?
Posted by: Tully at June 26, 2008 11:10 AM (tUyDE)
3
First, there are many ways that shooting a person near your home is not murder. That's a bit of an over-reaction.
Second, given all the anti-Jim Crow laws on the books already, attempts to make more would probably be quickly stricken down.
I'm happy with the decision and look forward to NYC and Chi having their laws challenged.
I think you three are a bit wound up.
Posted by: _Jon at June 26, 2008 11:14 AM (grH7t)
4
Has anyone reported this threat to the life of a sitting Supreme Court Justice to the Secret Service yet?
Posted by: Monsewage at June 26, 2008 11:20 AM (7BH9R)
5
I'd have to admit having similar thoughts about the dissenters. LOL!
Scalia was exactly right when he said, to the effect, that no other right is so subject to regulation. The intent of the framers was clear: They wanted the individuals in the states to have an effective means of thwarting tyranny on the part of the central government.
Seriously, I don't think this is a difficult decision, and that it was 5-4 says a lot about the kinds of people who get law degrees... IMO.
Posted by: Hucbald at June 26, 2008 11:21 AM (ZOnLj)
6
It is a victory for the gun community. But a small one. Read the full brief and majority opinion. You will see that it leaves a lot open.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Posted by: Matt at June 26, 2008 11:21 AM (91A6Z)
7
Typical lefty extremist -- thinks violence is the answer to getting his way politically, has no problem espousing murder, takes as axiomatic that his fellow lefties are hypocritical by having readily available a weapon he and they don't believe they have the right to keep and bear ....
Posted by: Dusty at June 26, 2008 11:23 AM (GJLeQ)
8
"Typical lefty extremist -- thinks violence is the answer to getting his way politically"
Besides taking the comment too seriously, did you see the various threads, particularly Malkins on the child rape decision?
Talk to me about violence then - and they were dead serious.
Anyway, typical lefty here happy with the decision, not happy with the dissent.
Posted by: angryflower at June 26, 2008 11:28 AM (uMRcI)
9
I'm with Monsewage. Can someone drop a call to the appropriate legal authorities and turn this guy in, please?
I'd do it but I'm tied up at work.
If not, I'll do so later.
Posted by: paul a'barge at June 26, 2008 11:32 AM (T3gfS)
10
It seems obvious to me that States do have the right to license handguns and to require registration of same, as they do with automobiles.
However, if a State should ever use this power (the idea being to deny gun licenses to convicted felons or those with histories of mental illness)
to so delay the issuing of handgun permits (see, e.g., New York City) that, based on this decision, the State or City would be smacked down HARD by every Federal Court in the land which is obligated to follow SCOTUS rulings, even if the Judge(s) do not agree with the SCOTUS decisions.
Posted by: realwest at June 26, 2008 11:34 AM (6vywl)
11
Didn't David Ehrenstein give us "Barack the Magic Negro"? Has to be the same guy.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at June 26, 2008 11:56 AM (es30B)
12
How's he gonna shoot him? If he's a Liberal he doesn't even own a gun and relies on 9-1-1 for help.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 26, 2008 11:57 AM (VNM5w)
13
I love this. Now it is all a "joke" that is being taken "too seriously" by idiots like angryflower.
No worries, the "proof" that it was a joke is, well, non existent of course. But, never fear, if angry flower waves her arm enough about non-existent comments at Malkin's site this will all go away.
Posted by: The Ace at June 26, 2008 12:05 PM (bptN3)
14
Ehenrenstein deserves a deep cavity search from a LEO enforcing the DC ban before it goes away.
Posted by: Smith N. Wesson at June 26, 2008 12:06 PM (T2Mjf)
15
Angryflower=typical liberal moral equivilence (sic? sorry not goona look it up)
On the one hand we have a vicious child rapist (I'd describe what he did to his stepdaughter but it would make you throw up likely) who was sentenced in a court of law to death...
And those nasty conservative commentors actually want his sentence upheld...
On the other hand we have a liberal hollywood IDIOT who wants to kill a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE because he (gasp) ruled that the words in the constitution have an actual meaning and aren't subserviant to Justice ginsbergs liberal activism...
I mean how DARE he disagree with you... Kill him...
But a child rapist sentenced to death by a jury of his peers? How COULD those evil republithugs want to hurt this poor guy... All he did was rape a child and literally tear up her insides, ruin her for life, then try to pin the blame on "2 kids on bikes"
The sad thins is that many liberals see things just this way (Both are the same) or worse (Kill the judge, treatment for the rapist)
Posted by: sonicpuke at June 26, 2008 12:08 PM (sfxxO)
16
"if a State should ever use this power . . . to so delay the issuing of handgun permits,"
You mean what the fed did with the NFA? A citizen could "own" a machine gun *IF* he licensed it and paid a fee 2Xs and in some cases 3Xs the actual cost of the gun. And in 1986 the fed banned the manufacture for citizen purchase any new machine guns.
Kinda reinforces a prong of the common use test. Restrict it in 1939 ban it in 1986 problem solved.
Posted by: tom gunn at June 26, 2008 12:27 PM (in6C+)
17
Well, of course, sonic. The rapist is a VICTIM, after all, and needs our compassionate understanding. Scalia is a conservative, though, and therefore all's fair and the gloves are off.
Posted by: Mike at June 26, 2008 12:30 PM (6rfXb)
18
Bob, this is the same scumbag that said this about J.C. Watts:
"Reconciliation between a house nigger like Watts and free and proud African-American like Lewis? Not likely."
As we all know, stuff like that will give you enough street cred to get you printed in left-wing major papers & on the must-read list of the bottom-feeding section of the internet.
Link to referenced comment
Posted by: RW at June 26, 2008 12:30 PM (mHiW8)
19
Sorry, here's the URL:
fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2002/12/16/thats-entertainment/
Posted by: RW at June 26, 2008 12:32 PM (mHiW8)
20
I don't think that a Judge should be murdered because someone disagrees with him.
That's just me though.
Posted by: brando at June 26, 2008 12:42 PM (qzOby)
21
TO: All
RE: Mr. Ehrenstein & Other 'Liberals' of His Ilk
"a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered." -- Confederate Yankee
If this report is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, this response is all too typical of so-called 'liberals' these days. If they don't like something they want to murder someone for it.
I guess this could be a classic example of projection, their fear of people having guns of their own. After all, if THEY want to murder someone, I suspect they believe that all the rest of us have similar feelings. Therefore, they live in fear of their neighbors because they think their neighbors are as prone to committing murder as they are.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The truth will out.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 12:45 PM (XaaHr)
22
Ehenrenstein deserves a deep cavity search. . .
I'm afraid that he would enjoy that.
Posted by: swlip at June 26, 2008 01:06 PM (TN0Mt)
23
5-4. All subject to change if Justice Kennedy decides to take his coffee differently.
Today it's the 2nd Amendment, yesterday the 8th. A few weeks ago, the Supremes tried their hand at military command. Tomorrow, who knows ? The law's whatever Justice Kennedy feels like today. As I said on my own blog, we don't have a republic, we have a clerisy, that acts in its own interest, every bit as much a theological state as the one the Iranians have: except our mullahs study at Harvard, not Qom.
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 26, 2008 01:27 PM (HVtOM)
24
They took Ehrenstein's comment down.
Posted by: thebronze at June 26, 2008 01:31 PM (17zSz)
25
Good thing you screen capped it because it's gone now...:
3 budda Says: great decision
this supreme court session has had many great decisions that are supported by the Constitution
whether you like it or not we all have the right to have a handgun
yay for pro second amendment democrats
Quote This Comment June 26th, 2008 at 7:35 AM - PDT
Posted by: pdxpunk at June 26, 2008 01:55 PM (7n3eV)
26
No, see, you guys don't understand, he was just joking. It was just ironic humor, don't you get it? Saying incredibly vicious things with a completely straight face is "the new funny".
Posted by: DensityDuck at June 26, 2008 02:06 PM (5npD/)
27
TO: DensityDuck
RE: Yeah!
"No, see, you guys don't understand, he was just joking." -- DensityDuck
And I'm sure Armed Liberal would agree.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 02:25 PM (XaaHr)
28
TO: All
RE: Protecting Scalia
I wonder....
....does the Secret Service provide protection to Supreme Court Justices?
If so...
....are they paying Mr. Ehrenstein a 'quiet' interview at this time?
I sure hope so.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We're from the government. We're here to help you. -- President Ronald Reagan, The Nine Most Horrifying Words in the English Language]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 02:44 PM (XaaHr)
29
"I wonder....
....does the Secret Service provide protection to Supreme Court Justices?"
I believe that would be the province of the US Marshals Service.
Posted by: Achillea at June 26, 2008 03:04 PM (JHiYq)
30
The Supremes' Heller decision gives me a warm feeling in my trigger finger. I've promised to take my daughters (19 & 25) to the range for some pistol practice this weekend. I hope my son, SGT FastLaneFlash, will be home from Fort Stewart to load magazines and clean weapons for us. He loves showing off his mad gun skills to his sisters. Grandpa's old 38 for the girls to start, then to the H-K & Kimber 45's. Sweetness.
Georgia now has a no retreat law. I wouldn't have retreated before they lawed it. Probably a lot of pistol-packing D.C. residents. When The Law is a fool, only a fool will obey it.
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 26, 2008 04:05 PM (05dZx)
31
Yesterday, in anticipation of a positive ruling in Heller, I celebrated by taking both my son and one of his friends to the range. The 18 year old friend wanted to fire handguns for the first time. First he got a safety lecture (4 Rules, range etiquette, and warning that all safety rules would be vigorously enforced).
To warm up, this young man (who several times already has shot skeet with his father, an Air Force retiree) fired a scoped semiautomatic 22LR Ruger 10/22, a Chinese Type 53 Mosin copy in 7.62x54, and a 1917 vintage BSCA Lee-Enfield in 303. The grandfather shooting 22s in the next lane with his son and grandson came over when the Mosin let out its mighty roar, ball of flame and sparks on the backstop. We had a meeting of Aggies (its a Texas thing) and I showed him the Enfield. He commented that it reminded him of his Krag, just showing that one-upsmanship is alive and well.
I let the grandson, a young man shooting his Chipmunk 22LR in the next lane, fire a mag out of the Ruger. His father and grandfather approved, and let me shoot a Chipmunk for the first and second times ever. What a hoot!
Then the young man, and my son, fired a Ruger Mark II 22LR pistol, a Glock 19 9mm, and a Ruger GP-100 (both 38s and 357s).
Other than a gouge on the neophyte's thumb from the recoil of the 357s, no harm came to anyone, a lot of experience was gathered, and now the guy wants a semiautomatic pistol of his own.
Posted by: Mikee at June 26, 2008 04:25 PM (Obsmn)
32
It was a stupid comment by a stupid person. Advocating violence is never the answer. Hope everyone here remembers this the next time a pro-abortion decision is handed down. There was some "kill the judge" talk then too. Doesn't excuse it, it's wrong whether a lib or con does it.
Posted by: Microbru at June 26, 2008 04:30 PM (NBSDy)
33
Guy must be a big admirer of Che. Che was big on killing those who didn't get with the program.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 26, 2008 06:15 PM (dcqty)
34
Cheap dregs from the bottom of the other guy's barrel. Would that they could do the same to yours ... WAIT! Check it out:
If this guy can outswim a great white shark while wearing chum-filled swim trunks, then let him go.
Even better...
If he can outswim a great white shark with Justice Kennedy tied to his legs (and wearing chum-filled swim trunks), then let him go.
Typical conservative -- not only does he not respect due process, he advocates bloodsport with a Supreme Court Justice. It seems everything I believe about conservatives must be true, since this one commenter said this horrible thing.
Posted by: SEK at June 26, 2008 06:53 PM (Rw+x5)
35
By SEK's own logic, SEK must be a child molester.
Posted by: DaveP. at June 26, 2008 07:08 PM (HH3SH)
36
Pro-Abortion? Really? Like for realsies?
That's the second time in the recent past that I've heard the concept of actual pro-abortion being defended.
That's a very, very bad idea.
Posted by: brando at June 26, 2008 11:40 PM (Gs5OS)
37
It seems obvious to me that States do have the right to license handguns and to require registration of same, as they do with automobiles.
I must have missed the amendment affirming citizens the right to drive automobiles. Driving autos is a privilege granted by the states; the keeping and bearing arms is a pre-existing right of every citizen that the Second Amendment states is not to be infringed.
With rights come responsibilities. It is not unreasonable for the states to require proficiency with a firearm (such as passing an NRA-sponsored safety course), but licensing is a stretch. The licensing process can be easily abused by bureaucrats on a whim. Perhaps when the ACLU has no objection to the licensing of printing presses or the licensing of voters, things will be different.
The whole issue of firearms ownership revolves around prior restraint; "we don't want you to have a firearm because you might harm someone". On the other hand, I might also save my life or those of my family.
Since criminals by definition do not obey the law, gun laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding. Today's decision affirms those who have taken responsibility for their own safety.
Posted by: Just Askin' at June 27, 2008 12:00 AM (esv00)
38
Equating this one blogger to the entire american left is just as egregious as when I hear people equate those "God Hates Fags" nuts to all Christians.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at June 27, 2008 02:07 AM (IVQmE)
39
For the record, David Ehrenstein is nuttier than squirrel turds and has a huge filthy hole where his soul ought to be. This is pretty tame stuff on the Eherenstein scale.
Posted by: Pablo at June 27, 2008 09:52 AM (yTndK)
40
El Jefe: "As I said on my own blog, we don't have a republic, we have a clerisy"
If you're going to promote yourself, the least you could do is link the post. ;-)
Actually, I'm collecting posts, articles, etc., along those very lines. I've posted about it here:
http://lumpenscholar.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/american-injustice-system/
Posted by: lumpenscholar at June 27, 2008 10:32 AM (L5zbV)
41
Equating this one blogger to the entire american left is just as egregious as when I hear people equate those "God Loves IEDs" nuts to all Democrats.
Phelps is a Democrat. The "look over there" argument, is not quite as symmetrical as you're making it out to be. I also personally know a Liberal Christian Democrat who has told me that Phelps is "A-OK", based on his behavior at military funerals. It always floors me when Democrats pull out Fred Phelps in order to validate horrible concepts, because they're just pointing back at themselves.
Primus-"Horrible behavior A is great, because horrible behavior B is great!"
Secundus-"Um. That makes no sense. Do neither."
Primus-"Obama 08!"
At any rate, murdering a judge is bad.
Posted by: brando at June 27, 2008 11:45 AM (qzOby)
42
At any rate, murdering a judge is bad.
Comity!
Posted by: SEK at June 27, 2008 03:22 PM (Rw+x5)
43
Interesting how the comment just disappeared. Other deleted comments were noted by the "sitemonitor."
Posted by: ginsocal at June 27, 2008 03:39 PM (6hw4x)
44
> I must have missed the amendment affirming citizens the right to drive automobiles. Driving autos is a privilege granted by the states
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Driving itself is not.
Posted by: James Dixon at June 27, 2008 07:49 PM (4WPpC)
45
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Driving itself is not.
You may operate a motor vehicle on your own property without a license. Driving outside your property without a driver's license -- whether on a public road or not -- is a violation of state law.
Posted by: Just Askin' at June 27, 2008 09:52 PM (esv00)
46
Ever notice that SOP for the progressives calls for the killing of those who disagree with them?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 28, 2008 02:32 PM (LHaZf)
47
TO: Thomas Jackson
RE: In a 'Word'....
"Ever notice that SOP for the progressives calls for the killing of those who disagree with them?" -- Thomas Jackson
....YES.
They 'kill' me all the time. Especially when I start 'making sense' from my 'evangelical' perspective.
That includes such 'stellar' cretins as Charles Johnson; who can't stand evangelical christians in discussions about ID v. Evolution. Indeed, I had a communique from another individual who has been 'killed' on LGF because of his honestly held understandings.
Go fig....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 28, 2008 04:25 PM (XaaHr)
48
Isn't this technically classified as "conspiracy to commit murder"? If a conservative posted what that man has said, than it would be all over the news. But since a liberal said it about a conservative, all is well and good in the world. What is wrong with the media today?
Posted by: Carolyn Petersen at June 29, 2008 06:46 PM (OouTi)
42kb generated in CPU 0.0166, elapsed 0.0972 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0863 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
54 queries taking 0.0863 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
